[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I hear repeatedly about the GOP being “anti-science” and while people like Michelle Bachmann certainly fall into that camp, its also a false narrative regarding those on the right that do not.[/quote]
Please name some GOP leaders that are not “anti-science” and then tell us how much influence these folks have on the GOP party platform.
Are you referring to the presidential nomination front-runners that claim that evolution never occurred, so therefore dinosaurs never existed?
Because it’s really hard to explain all those bones we’ve been finding…
Oh … ok, we’ll change the story then. Perhaps, people and dinosaurs lived together at the same time?
I’ve seen those depictions of people with dinosaurs as pets. Hilarious! I wonder if a T-Rex can be house trained…
True, we can’t be sure, so we better teach evolution and creationism side-by-side, you know, because the scientific evidence for each is equivalent.
Or perhaps you mean the one (and-a-half) guy(s) at last night’s debate that sorta acknowledged climate change? Ooops! – did someone mention climate change?
[quote]It also omits the fact that there are many on the Left who treat AGW/Climate Change as revealed truth and “settled science” and will brook no argument on the topic. In terms of empiricism and objectivity, there is NO SUCH THING as “settled science” and never will be.[/quote]
Yeah, so we can keep using the “well we are only 99% sure, not 100% sure, excuse” to delay action on every decision. Because the issue is not “settled” and never will be.
But I’m surprised to learn there are people that are so entrenched in their opinions – so entrenched that they refuse to consider ANY evidence that may refute their position. Any of them in the GOP?
Allan, are you seriously trying to defend the GOP’s record on science?[/quote]
Yep…it is only the GOP who are anti-science.
Not carrying water for the GOP here. Just saying, the democrats will turn a blind eye when it is convenient just as quickly.
From Johah Goldberg
Why does the Left get to pick which issues are the benchmarks for “science”? Why can’t the measure of being pro-science be the question of heritability of intelligence? Or the existence of fetal pain? Or the distribution of cognitive abilities among the sexes at the extreme right tail of the bell curve? Or if that’s too upsetting, how about dividing the line between those who are pro- and anti-science along the lines of support for geoengineering? Or — coming soon — the role cosmic rays play in cloud formation? Why not make it about support for nuclear power? Or Yucca Mountain? Why not deride the idiots who oppose genetically modified crops, even when they might prevent blindness in children?
…
During the Gulf oil spill, the Obama administration dishonestly claimed that its independent experts supported a drilling moratorium. They emphatically did not. The president who campaigned on basing his policies on “sound science” ignored his own hand picked experts. According to the GAO, he did something very similar when he shut down Yucca Mountain. His support for wind and solar energy, as you suggest, isn’t based on science but on faith. And that faith has failed him dramatically.
The idea that conservatives are anti-science is self-evident and self-pleasing liberal hogwash. I see no reason why conservatives should even argue the issue on their terms when it’s so clearly offered in bad faith in the first place.
